7 ms·

>But if you pay people from donations directly then it's not OK to pay a lot. Unless the donator is aware of the fact that you are paying your employees with t

by shader 18y ago

>But if you pay people from donations directly then it's not OK to pay a lot. Unless the donator is aware of the fact that you are paying your employees with the donations, and choose to give anyway. In fact, most large charities have employees who get paid, usually out of donations :). But you don't make your decision based on their management process, but based on the service they provide you; namely aiding some cause on your behalf. You don't decide whether or not to buy a burger at McDonald's based on what percentage of your dollar goes to the CEO, but based on the quality of the service they may provide. Same with charities. If a charity can get away with paying exorbitant amounts to their CEO and still be the best value per dollar, people will donate, and it won't be wrong. Maybe the reason they do so well is that they were able to hire great high level management. However, to convince people that you were going to spend their money one way and then actually spend it another is fraud. If you paid McDonald's for your burger, and they didn't give it to you, you would be within your rights to sue. At the very least you wouldn't go back. So it is with charities. It is perfectly fine if you feel that a particular charity spends too much on management, and therefore decide not to donate your money to them. I realize that you may have been stating your personal opinion as to how you decide which charities you donate to, and that's fine. But to then claim in newspapers or other places that because they don't match your standards they are objectively evil and should be shut down/boycotted is a completely different thing. I think that is more what the article is about.

ars 18y ago
But I do actually make my decisions based on their management process. Personally if they spend more than 5-10% of the money on administrative expenses I don't donate. And BTW that cuts out the vast majority of the charities, I think (wild guess) that most spend around 50%, and some as high as 75% (police fraternities for example (again, wild guess)). The newspaper example, I think, was more a case of the person not being upfront about it. Also, I personally think that if the charity money did not go to him, it would go somewhere else. So by him consuming 50% of the donations for his own pocket he is reducing the amount of charity money in the world. Others might disagree and say that if he didn't get the donation, no one would. So you might as well allow him to exist. If that's your opinion fine. But I feel that even if the second case is the real one I still am not OK with it (but I think the first one is what actually happens).

by shader 18y ago

ars 18y ago

But I do actually make my decisions based on their management process. Personally if they spend more than 5-10% of the money on administrative expenses I don't donate. And BTW that cuts out the vast majority of the charities, I think (wild guess) that most spend around 50%, and some as high as 75% (police fraternities for example (again, wild guess)). The newspaper example, I think, was more a case of the person not being upfront about it. Also, I personally think that if the charity money did not go to him, it would go somewhere else. So by him consuming 50% of the donations for his own pocket he is reducing the amount of charity money in the world. Others might disagree and say that if he didn't get the donation, no one would. So you might as well allow him to exist. If that's your opinion fine. But I feel that even if the second case is the real one I still am not OK with it (but I think the first one is what actually happens).